Part of
Structural Priming in the Grammatical NetworkTobias Ungerer
[Constructional Approaches to Language 35] 2023
► pp. ix–ix
Tobias Ungerer
[Constructional Approaches to Language 35] 2023
► pp. ix–ix
List of figures
Figure 2.1A (hypothetical) network of argument structure constructions
Figure 2.2Multidimensional similarities between the caused-motion and the resultative construction
Figure 2.3The caused-motion (CM) and the resultative (RES) construction emerge from clusters of similar subpatterns at lower levels of schematicity
Figure 2.4Similarities at higher and lower levels of schematicity may give rise to additional super- and subschemas (RESwide = “resultative in the wide sense”)
Figure 2.5Horizontal representation of the similarities between caused-motion (CM) and resultative (RES) subtypes
Figure 2.6Vertical representation of the similarities between caused-motion (CM) and resultative (RES) subtypes (RESwide = “resultative in the wide sense”)
Figure 2.7Schematic representation of similarities and differences between alternating argument structure constructions
Figure 2.8Similarities and differences between the double-object and the to-dative construction
Figure 2.9Schematic representation of similarities and differences between homonymous constructions and between polysemous constructions (additional features of the latter in square brackets)
Figure 2.10Similarities and differences between the transfer and the benefactive double-object construction
Figure 2.11Similarities and differences between the resultative and the object-oriented depictive construction
Figure 2.12Schematic representation of similarities and differences between constructions that are partially similar in form and function
Figure 2.13Similarities and differences between the to-dative and the for-dative construction
Figure 2.14Similarities and differences between the to-dative and the (locative) caused-motion construction
Figure 2.15Similarities and differences between the caused-motion and the resultative construction, including their potential metaphorical asymmetry
Figure 3.1Potential within-construction priming effects in experiments that use the same constructions as primes and targets
Figure 3.2Potential cross-constructional priming effects in experiments that use different constructions as primes and targets
Figure 3.3Potential effects of within-construction and cross-constructional priming in experiments that use the same constructions as primes and targets
Figure 5.1Sample trial in the standard maze task
Figure 5.2Model estimates of log10-transformed response times for resultative targets (left) and depictive targets (right) depending on the prime construction in Experiment 1
Figure 5.3Sample trial in the modified maze task
Figure 5.4Model estimates for the proportion of depictive responses after resultative, depictive and unrelated primes in Experiment 2 (only for highly acceptable targets)
